Re: New Orthography for slaleg ekryn
| From: | Matt Trinsic <trinsic@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 20:43 |
|---|
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:03:46 -0700
> From: JS Bangs <jaspax@...>
> Subject: Re: New Orthography for slaleg ekryn
>
> Matt Trinsic sikyal:
>
>>> The vowels are a bit more complicated. There are only six of them, but
>>> they each have two phonemes. All noun words use one set of phonemes,
>>> while all verb words use the other set. Their <orthography> and /noun
>>> phonemes/ /vowel phonemes/ are:
>>> <u> /@`/ /3`/, <y> /i/ /e/, <i> /aI/ /V/, <o> /u/ /o/, <e> /I/ /E/,
>>> <a> /{/ /O/
>
>
> I think I understand what you mean here, but this is not how I would
> explain it. The statement "they each have two phonemes" makes no sense.
> What you seem to be saying is that there is an alternation between the
> vowel phones found in verbs and those found in derived nouns, e.g. we have
> the noun [flIt] and the verb [flEt], but these are variations of the same
> morphophonemic word /flIt/. (I'm choose a symbol at random, here.)
Morphophonemic sounds good. I am still a little unsure of the exact
differences in meaning between phonemes and phones, but it sounds like
you have got the idea there. Although neither the verb or the noun is
really derived from the other.
> Do *all* verbs and nouns have this division. Can a verb *never* have the
> phone [I]? If so, I know of no natlang that has such a system, but it's an
> interestic analytical problem.
The division is universal. Basically, there is one set of vowel phones
for the nouns, and another for the verbs. The phone pairing is also
constant such that the same noun vowel phone is always related to the
same verb vowel phone.
> Quoting JS Bangs <jaspax@...>:
>
>
> Sounds like a kind of ablaut to me, if this process is regular.
Yes, just like that. =)
Reply